I think the page looks awesome. Thanks for your work on that! The editing you did is one of the hardest parts.

Today we delegated a few tasks. I'll write the segments on Spanish Banks and St. George's Rainway. I'm also going to add a Vancouver section to the worldwide stream daylighting page. OptimizeThis (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've expanded on Hastings and Tatlow as well as the introduction to stream daylighting. One issue I noticed was in your St. George Rainway section. I'm not sure who cooperation is planned with. It just looks somewhat awkward with just the link in there.
If possible if you could just expand a bit more on your sections, I think we should be okay for our draft. For the most part our page is pretty together.
We will have to get some pictures at some point, but time wise right now, I just don't have the time to make the trip yet. After Tuesday I'm free to make the venture to a couple of these places. -Courtney 18:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korolukc (talk • contribs)

New Plan

So after Yunshui said that we should be merging our page to the existing stream daylighting page, and Rosie agreeing that this was the best direction we will have to nix our introduction, and come up with a brief history of daylighting in Vancouver instead to make a Vancouver section on the existing page.
She said just to leave it as is until after peer review however. -Courtney 02:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korolukc (talk • contribs)

Feedback from Justin

First off, I just want to say that your page is well written. It looks like you’ve put a lot of work into it and have come up with fairly substantial evidence to support your page, as indicated by the many citations you have provided. My job here is to help improve your current draft, so I’ll provide as much feedback as possible to help you out.

I would be sure to proof read your page for any grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors and consider running it through a spell check in case anything was missed. I noticed a handful of errors that could easily be fixed by combing over it thoroughly. For example, this sentence in the beginning needs a word or two changed around for it to make sense: "When streams are daylighted, we quite a number of benefits including…" You also use two different spellings for the word ‘aesthetic’ and your choice of ‘it’s’ instead of ‘its’ is not always correct. ‘Its’ is used to generally describe a possessive of something and ‘it’s’ means ‘it is.’ I’ve noticed a lack of commas in your page (for example, the sentence 'During the late summer months the moist soil…’ should be 'During the late summer months, the moist soil…') and the use of semi-colons whenever you’re using a transition word like ‘however’ in the middle of a sentence. Again, all simple fixes that can be found during a careful proofread. These are just small things but these types of details go a long way into making your page look nice and clean.

There is currently a page already on Wikipedia for ‘Stream Daylighting.’ Are you planning on expanding the current page or are you creating your own? Wikipedia’s entry is already somewhat substantial, so maybe you can consider re-naming your page to something more relevant to your topic or changing the focus of the page so it is more relevant to why it’s necessary in Vancouver (since the project is about Vancouver-based ecology). While you do provide plenty of your own information, it needs to be more specific to avoid it being redundant from the page that already exists.

Your introduction seems very list heavy. I would consider subdividing the lists and making them into their own sections since they are dealing with related but separate subjects. If you view other Wikipedia pages, you will notice that the opening of the page is basically just a paragraph or a couple sentences of writing and any lists are usually contained within the body of the page. I think it would be best to follow this template so the general Wikipedia user without knowledge on this subject doesn’t get bombarded with specifics right out of the gate. Having said that, your lists are carefully constructed and easy to understand. You can expand them even further to make your page even more detailed.

For the three major types of stream daylighting, I feel that you could afford to expand on them and relate them to three Vancouver projects you talk about. I think it’s necessary to explain more of their importance, in what instance one would be chosen over the other two and possibly any negatives of any of the choices. You do have a small description of the challenges of daylighting but you could make it more specific to the types that you have listed.

You’ve done a good job of adding lots of citations to your page to support your work but you haven’t created a reference section within your page. Without that, I would have to click ‘edit' on your page and go into the text to copy the links and paste them into my browser to view them. Since there are 24 citations, this would be extremely time consuming and impractical and, as a result, I cannot confirm the validity of the sources you have used. It would also be very difficult for the general Wikipedia user that has little knowledge of editing pages to check your sources for more information. Make sure you create a ‘Reference’ section at the bottom of your page and use the correct code to generate your reference list. I think it’s just the phrase ‘reflist' surrounded by those squiggly brackets but double check by Googling how to properly cite your material on Wikipedia.

I would consider using images in your page as well for some added depth. If you found or took your own images of the current streams or what they used to look like, it would give readers added insight into the issue here. Another idea would be to use a map of Vancouver and identifying the specific areas you’ve highlighted on your page on the map as a reference as to where these projects are taking place. It just helps the reader understand where it is taking place and how they are possibly related.

I hope this feedback helped, you are well on your way to a good page. Good luck! JThandi10 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Abhi

First off I just want to say that this was a very interesting article! I had no idea there were so many stream daylighting projects in the Lower Mainland. Here are some suggestions to make this page that much better:

What is stream daylighting? Your definition is so short and sets the tone for the rest of the article it may help to try to integrate a bit more detail and expand on the idea of it before giving examples of how the streams could be lost
- What do you mean by "lost?"

There is a grammatical error in the first sentence: "stream daylighting is the process by which urban streams which have been lost are being uncovered"
- There is a difference in tense here so consider this sentence instead: "stream daylighting deals with the process of uncovering urban streams that were previously lost through multiple possibilities listed below"

I believe you are missing a word in this sentence
- "when streams are daylighted, we quite a number of benefits including"

There is a lot of listing in the first section, try to integrate these into paragraphs to make it more of a wholesome article
- a list of bullet points makes it seem like you have very limited information to talk about and are only scrapping the surface
- use complete sentences and integrate all the bullet points for the respective topics in the first section together

In the first sentence of the Hastings creek section there is a spelling error:
- "...1994 as a way to manage storm water and for asthetic purposes"
- Change to aesthetic

Gramatical error:
- "...finalized in 1997, and work had begun the same year"
- remove the "had"

Need a reference for this:
- Located upstream from Spanish Banks waterfront, one of the highest profile creeks in Vancouver Metro became open to salmon in 2000

You should link Coho and Chum salmon to their individual pages for those individuals that dont know what they look like or more details about the species

In the St.George Rainway section link Salmon and Trout to their individual pages

For the Tatlow creek section you should explain where the Seaside Greenway is located in regards to the Burrard bridge

The wording in this sentence is awkward: “The beginning of this project has been started by the City of Vancouver in 2013, after it's approval on July 29th, 2013. Volunteer Park is located in Kitsilano at the corner of Point Grey Road and Macdonald Street, where the main daylighting project of Tatlow Creek is to occur.”
- You can change it to: The initial aspects of the project have been started by the City of Vancouver in 2013, after being approved in July of the same year. The main daylighting project of Tatlow Creek however is located at Volunteer Park in Kitsilano. Volunteer Park is located at the corner of Point Grey Road and Macdonald Street.

You should include:
- Reference list at the bottom of the article
- Possibly a "See also" section
- External links to sites or other Wikipedia pages about the areas you are discussing in the article
- It would help a lot to include pictures for each of the areas discussed to put the region and project into context. Right now there is a lot of text and it can get pretty dry when reading through it if you are not interested in the project. Use some exciting pictures to draw us into the text.

Hope that helps! Good luck!

Cheers,

Abhic93 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feed back from Luke

I'll just go directly into the point. I'm not really good at organizing so I hope you can understand what I wrote.

Since there are multiple pages about and related to stream daylighting it'd be better to rename the title as streamdaylighting(Vancouver)

The page lacks some helpful visuals that may be more intriguing to the readers. Also, the use of active voice is better than passive voice.

It can be better if the page has a summary and definition of stream daylighting at the very beginning of the page rather than after the content box.

"we quite a number of benefits" doesn't really make sense.

"buried streams have been to blame for the sinking of structures such as houses" the sentence seems a little bit out of the pattern. While other parts of the list are talking about the benefit, the sentence is about the problem that stream daylighting has caused. It is indeed indirectly related to the list but it would be better if you state the benefit directly.

These natural conditions will include a constructed channel however, it is a porous, natural streambed rather than concrete

Cultural Restoration: this is when the buried stream remains buried, however the stream path is indicated with markers or public art.

=> requires semicolon before however or should be two sentences.

Hastings Creek As the PNE grounds continued to expand there was a continued loss of natural woodlands, greenery and waterways.=>Because PNE is first used in the page, it has to be written as Pacific National Exhibition(PNE). Also, there's a wikipage already so it's better to link it too.

This variation in flow does not allow for salmon migration through the creek, however it does house trout as well as vegetation which aid in the filtration of the storm water entering the creek. =>however into but

Spanish Bank "Rigorous effectiveness monitoring" needs to be clarified. "coho and chum salmon" may use link

Tatlow Creek Because you are explaining phase one and two, you should mention that there are two parts of the plan in the beginning.

The information can be in chronological order where it starts from 1996 and ends with 2015-2017 Capital Plan. 172.218.172.10 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC) �[reply]

Feedback from Karolina

Hi,

The page looks good so far, has a lot of information, and seems like you put a lot of work into it! Just a few things:

INTRO

- "Stream Daylighting is the process by which urban streams which have been lost are being uncovered" - first sentence sounds grammatically awkward

- same with second sentence: "These streams may have been lost for a multitude of reasons including, but not limited to" maybe just make it: "These streams may have been lost for a multitude of reasons such as:"

- because this is an intro paragraph I feel the bullet points are unnecessary; they just make it look longer. Maybe clean it up into 2 small paragraphs and keep the "three major types of stream daylighting seen today"

- "When streams are daylighted, we quite a number of benefits including" change it to "When streams are daylighted,there are benefits such as:"

- "Stream daylighting may be beneficial, but it is not without it's challenges, as is any project:" change to Stream daylighting may be beneficial but it has its challenges such as" I feel like you can simplify/shorten a lot of your sentences.

TATLOW CREEK

- "The beginning of this project has been started by the City of Vancouver in 2013, after it's approval on July 29th, 2013" change to "The project was approved on July 29th, 2013 and has been begun by the City of Vancouver in the same year" or something like that rather than mentioning 2013 twice

OTHER

- add a few pictures for illustration because just from the article it's hard to imagine!

- good job sourcing everything but provide a reference list at the bottom!

- I feel like it could use another paragraph at the end that sort of wraps the whole page up, maybe a paragraph comparing strealighting in other places or mentioning them and giving links. or maybe you could go a paragraph about the negatives/drawbacks of streamlighting and what other people think.

Good luck! Karolina7 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruth

This is a very interesting page and an improvement on the current page. However there are some areas that need improvement:

Photos?

If there are only three items in the list make this into a sentence rather than a list.

The first two lists could be reformatted into a couple (or more?) paragraphs. You could then add an explanation and/or examples and reference(s) to each of your list items i.e. how does stream daylighting improve nutrient retention and what exactly is nutrient retention anyway??

I don’t know what any of this means: ” this is when a stream is restored to it's natural stream conditions. These natural conditions will include a constructed channel however, it is a porous, natural streambed rather than concrete. “ What exactly do you mean by constructed channel?? Why would it be concrete in the first place? How is Natural Restoration different from Architectural restoration? Compare the different methods and avoid or explain jargon.

The flow of information is not always good. For example in Hastings Creek section: ”Bring the stream back..” What stream?? You haven’t yet introduced this stream. Change the order, make sure we have all the information to understand what you are saying and improve the flow better.

Where is Hastings Creek, Tatlow Creek, Burrard Bridge?? Vancouver, Canada? London, UK? Delhi, India?? Make sure for each section the (to you) obvious but VERY important information is present.

“This daylighting project also improved pedestrian and bikeway transit.” How?? Improved is very subjective.

General comments:

There is a lot of jargon in this article that needs explaining or at the very minimum a link.

You need more background about Vancouver and each of the places you mention before you go into great detail about the project

Lots of links to other Wikipedia pages are needed such as Coho salmon etc.

I feel that you have got too bogged down in the details and forgotten about the broader information and background you need to include to make your page accessible to the global audience. Take a step back and think who this article is aimed at/who will read it?

Good that you include some downsides to stream daylighting. Perhaps also include some problems or opposition to the specific projects you discuss?

Your reference list is missing.

This page is very interesting but with these improvements this will make a great and valuable Wikipeida page you will be really proud to show your all your friends!!

RuthVancouver (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reviewers all missed the note above explaining that this won't be a stand-alone Wikipedia page - instead its Vancouver-specific material will be added to the existing Daylighting (streams) page.

The existing Daylighting (streams) page has an excessively long section about projects in Seattle. If you have time you might want to edit this section down, so it's about the same length as your Vancouver entry. You could also make any other improvements you like to this page. In future you'll probably find that other editors have shortened both the Seattle and Vancouver sections. Rosieredfield (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hey Aaron, so as of right now, I'm just waiting to hear back from a couple of sources for pictures. The only one that's tricky is Tatlow Creek since it is currently a plan, not in action. The Park Board Report does not even have their finalized creek restoration diagrams up yet. We could either attempt to get some pictures of Volunteer Park before hand, or leave it as is.
-Courtney 02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korolukc (talk • contribs)

Deadline is coming up

Hey, Aaron.
I have added photos to the page. I have also done the internal linking to other wikipedia pages. I also did the grammatical corrections that were suggested in the peer review.
I was just wondering if you could just do a double check for grammatical stuff, just proof reading and what not. So that we can hopefully get our final draft done within the next couple of days and get the page moved to daylighting(streams) before Thursday. There will be some editing that needs to be done on that page just to make our section fit with their formatting. -Courtney 01:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korolukc (talk • contribs)